Jump to content

Post Oak

Legacy Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Post Oak

  1. Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Punishment for Batteries while Gas Skates Free ERCOT wants massive penalties for the most dispatchable and flexible resource, while the PUC tries to protect consumers and the grid DOUG LEWIN DEC 7 READ IN APP Photo Credit: GE Power Power grid operators need flexible and dispatchable resources, especially when grids are under extreme stress or emergency conditions. The worse the conditions, the greater the need for flexible resources. There’s no energy resource that’s more flexible or dispatchable than batteries. They can respond in sub-seconds and fulfill a variety of grid needs. So why on earth is ERCOT trying to slow down battery deployment? Upgrade to paid Last month, the ERCOT Board unanimously approved a protocol revision request (ERCOT’s version of a rule change) requiring batteries to maintain a state of charge at all times. Batteries, of course, are meant to be depleted and recharged; ERCOT’s rule would force them to always have more juice, even in dangerous conditions — times when Texans desperately need it. “ERCOT is trying to make batteries look like and act like coal plants,” Commissioner Glotfelty wrote in a memo that injected some common sense into the discussions of ERCOT’s protocol revision request (known as NPRR 1186). Commissioner Glotfelty suggested to ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas back in August that the proposal would increase costs for consumers and create reliability problems; he suggested ERCOT to go “back to the drawing board” on the proposal and to “not pass it at the next Board meeting.” ERCOT ignored that advice — the politically appointed board unanimously passed a protocol revision that somewhat eased the heavy handed regulation of batteries but would still force batteries to hoard electricity when Texans need it. And so, three months later, the PUC was again left to express its displeasure with a regulation that would discourage investment in a dispatchable power source that Texas desperately needs. Share Time and Punishment ERCOT proposes a $25,000 fine for every five minutes that battery operators drop below the minimum charge. That’s a massive, chilling punishment. For contrast, the most money that any resource can make in the state’s energy market is $5,000 per megawatt hour — this fine would be orders of magnitude higher. It also would push the Texas grid into an even more dangerous state. On September 6, ERCOT declared emergency conditions for the first time since Winter Storm Uri. Batteries “helped save the day,” surging to 2,181 megawatts of output when the grid was only a few hundred megawatts from outages. According to ERCOT, after the event was over, all the batteries on the grid collectively had 15% state of charge. They delivered during the time they were needed the most (see graphics below). ERCOT’s slide in its September 6 report (page 17) showed a large drop in frequency with 7:19 - 7:25 as the most critical moments… Batteries surged at the exact time they were needed. Should they be punished for delivering power at the most critical moment? ERCOT apparently thinks so. Do we want battery storage operators holding power back while the grid teeters? Again, apparently ERCOT does. Thankfully, the PUC does not. Upgrade to paid The Way Forward ERCOT told the Commission they need this NPRR to get visibility into the state of charge for batteries on the grid. OK, sure — no one seems to disagree with their need for visibility. Glotfelty rightly recommended deleting the penalty provisions of NPRR 1186; ERCOT could create some visibility into the resource without curtailing the investment Texas needs. That’s a reasonable compromise. Gas plants, after all, aren’t penalized if they don’t have gas above the replacement cost of power (that is, beyond the risk borne by all market participants); by extension, batteries shouldn’t be penalized for expending their charge when needed. “Since ERCOT has not yet adopted any protocols regarding the real-time state of fuel availability for coal or gas plants,” Commissioner Glotfelty wrote in his memo, “it would be discriminatory to adopt burdensome operational requirements on storage devices when no such requirements are placed upon thermal plants.” Indeed. Refer a friend Discriminatory Rulemaking In fact, as long as we’re on the visibility train, let’s get ERCOT some insight into the availability of all resources. That means batteries and gas. After all, while batteries prevented blackouts on Sept. 6, a lack of gas was one of the largest causes of outages during Winter Storm Uri. All you’d need is something like a “gas desk” to simply monitor fuel availability in gas markets. Who could be opposed to that? Craddick’s “constituents” made a lot of money selling gas during Uri. They’d rather not have that monitored, as this excellent Bloomberg article explains in detail. The double standard is shocking. Penalties need to be standard and uniform across resources. And everyone should give ERCOT insight into resource availability. The agency can’t do its job without that transparency. Upgrade to paid What’s Next ERCOT should not be in the business of discriminating against any resource, but certainly not one that’s so flexible, dispatchable, and essential in grid emergencies. As Commissioner Cobos put it in last week’s PUC meeting: “I feel like we’re setting up hurdles and we should… avoid sending negative investment signals for resources that we need right now.” It’s time for ERCOT to move on from NPRR 1186 (and the successor NPRR 1209 they’re now pushing). We need energy storage to help Texans keep cool on the hottest summer days and stay warm in the dead of winter. ERCOT’s bizarre attempts to slow down one of the most flexible and dispatchable resources available is counterproductive to the twin goals of reliability and affordability. As weather gets more extreme, flexible resources become even more necessary, and we’re experiencing a lot more extremes lately. It’s time ERCOT get to work removing barriers for batteries, and stop creating them.
  2. We won't be as good up the middle next year but if we are able to add Moore to Simmons along with what we've already got there's not going to be a lot of comfortable QBs next year.
  3. We had a guy that had Charlie pull his offer on his OV in December I think. A LB I think
  4. This feels like a 38-34 game to me. The last thing I want is for UW to have the ball down 4 with 90 seconds left.
  5. Same. 20 for the trash man. 20 for the mail carrier.
  6. Let's see you stalk block. -Colin Klein probably
  7. Apparently 10 is Kevin Ford. https://247sports.com/player/kevin-ford-jr-46138582/
  8. I was wondering about him. Seems like we could pull him from Baylor if we wanted. Twitter bio say 6'5" 270 right now. He's not very explosive or technical right now. They play him as a stand up DL now and move him around. I wouldn't hate it if we were to flip him mainly because of his frame and what he might look like in 24 months. He's definitely a sign and stash and let Bo and Becton work on him. He's pretty good clay.
  9. I actually don't think I doubt Looch on the FB coaches texting him. Think about how many students pass through there a year. Dozens and dozens of them go on to coach. Their whole lives they've been indoctrinated by TA propaganda. Their brains are maroon malt o meal. If Dear Leader says it's a good hire they obey. They rush to Twitter or TA to post superlatives. I bet 100% of those coaches are aggy.
  10. It's almost like they're Russian sponsored Twitter bots.
  11. I wonder how many of these kids who leave Texas end up with Choate and Nevada. Seems like it might be a good match.
  12. The black and burnt orange look terrible together imo and I see it pop up more and more. Hard pass.
  13. From 30 feet away she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from 30 feet away. -Raymond Chandler
  14. I think Danny Kanell is a wanker but his daughters sound awesome.
  • Create New...